Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @12:25PM
from the stuff-i'll-never-be-able-to-afford dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Designs and photos for Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic's new suborbital spacecraft, SpaceShipTwo, and its carrier aircraft, WhiteKnightTwo, have been released." Lots of specs and numbers if you're interested in that sort of thing although nothing hugely detailed.

First off, almost all orbital launches are private. Most are completely private except for government funding in the development stage and government launch contracts; the launches are run for-profit by companies like Boeing and Lockheed. Even for ones run by NASA, like the shuttle, the craft itself was largely built by private companies. If you want to rule out "large" private companies, there's SeaLaunch, Orbital Sciences, etc, who've developed and run for-profit their own rockets. And if you want rockets developed largely from scratch, look no further than SpaceX and their Falcon rocket (with soon upcoming Dragon spacecraft).

Why cheer for irrelevance? Cheer for what actually matters.

By the way -- I'm not sure the analogy with early aircraft is the one you're going for. Just ignoring how little capital it took to build an airplane versus what it takes to make an orbital spacecraft, you should realize that early airplanes suffered major crashes at very regular intervals. The pilots typically survived because the performance of said aircraft was so low. The first cross-country flight took weeks and involved dozens of crashes. For the first around-the-world race, the US strategically placed replacement parts and even entire replacement airplanes for its pilots to use.

Even if that was an analogy you wanted to use, you should be comparing early aircraft with early rockets (V2, Redstone, etc), not with SS1 and their "repeat what's done decades ago in a way that we know damn well won't scale to anything". SS1 isn't developing new technology or pushing the envelope; they're making craft that don't advance anything except people's ability to have a joyride.

Any comparison of space flight to aircraft flight development is just depressing. It took about 30 years to go from the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk to the DC-3, a commercially-useful passenger aircraft that any reasonable person would feel safe flying in. In rocketry, on the other hand, it's been 50 years and it still costs thousands of dollars to put a kilo in orbit - and you still have something like a 1 in 50 chance of dying in the attempt.But of course, there was a readily-apparent market for aircraft

It took 30 years for Jet technology to appear, I wonder if it will be a similar amount of time before we get private orbital cabability.

Jet technology was also originally a military technology, but got pushed out to the private sector pretty enthusiastically.

Orbital rocket technology isn't going to see the same level of cooperation. Where you or I might be interested in "cheap access to space" leading in the longer term to "colonizing the solar system", governments tend to reasonably focus on the more shor

I'm surprised at the amount of scepticism over this project, esp on/. Let's face it, commercial designs such as SS2 are the only way any of us down here will be getting 'up there' in our lifetime.

FYI, from el Wiki: "More than 65,000 would-be space tourists have applied for the first batch of 100 tickets to be available. The price will initially be US$200,000. However, after the first 100 tickets are sold the price would be dropped to around $100,000. Then deposits after the first year will drop to around $20,000. The duration of the flight will be approximately 2.5 hours, and weekly launches are planned.

In December 2007 Virgin Galactic had 200 paid-up applicants on its books for the early flights, and 95% were passing the necessary 6-8 g centrifuge tests"

Probably half or more of the posters here are from America. If you check a number of polls, many Americans believe that NASA has been a waste. Sadly, they also believe that Science is a waste. It comes down to the more that politicians declare that science projects like Genetic Engineering, Stem Cell research, Global Warming Research, etc is bad for the world (and America), then by extension, then RD efforts like NIH, CDC, and even NASA must be worthless. Out politicians are killing us. It is no wonder that we see our RD labs torn down.

Probably half or more of the posters here are from America. If you check a number of polls, many Americans believe that NASA has been a waste. Sadly, they also believe that Science is a waste. It comes down to the more that politicians declare that science projects like Genetic Engineering, Stem Cell research, Global Warming Research, etc is bad for the world (and America), then by extension, then RD efforts like NIH, CDC, and even NASA must be worthless. Out politicians are killing us. It is no wonder that

Well, I am also from America, and have worked for NASA (on MGS), CDC(in early 80s) and a few RD labs in the USA. In what way have I bashed NASA, or America? I point out what is happening in America ACCORDING to polls ( as well as what I have seen), and you say that it is bashing America? I guess that is simply shoot the messenger?

To be launched on a Lockheed Martin Titan III rocket, Dyna-Soar was for hypersonic flight research but the programme was cancelled before the first vehicle was completed. Some of its subsystems were used in later X-15 flight research and Dyna-Soar became a testbed for advanced technologies that contributed to projects, including the Space Shuttle.

Above: SpaceShipTwo is carried between the two fuselages of White Knight II

Virgin Galactic's commercial operations will now start from New Mexico's Spaceport America in 2010 and not from Mojave air and space port in California, as originally planned, but the WK2, SS2 launch system will be test flown by Scaled at the Californian port.

At its 23 January press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York city Virgin Galactic described SS2 as using the same basic technology, construction and design as its predecessor SpaceShipOne (SS1), as 100% composite and twice as large as the $10 million X-Prize winning vehicle, SS1.

Above: SpaceShipTwo transitions into feathering mode for its reentry

The SS2 is 18.3m (60ft) long, has a wingspan of 12.8m, a tail height of 4.5m with a passenger cabin that is 3.66m long and 2.28m in diameter. Despite being so much larger than SS1, SS2 will still use a front nose skid, and not nose gear. Released at 50,000ft (15,200m) by WK2, the rocket glider's apogee is expected to be up to 110km (68 miles).

Above: SpaceShipTwo is under construction at Scaled Composites

The carrier aircraft, WK2, is now 23.7m-long, it still has a wingspan of 42.7m, with a tail height of 7.62m and its integration is now 80% complete - with the assembly of the wing underway in preparation for its mating with the twin fuselages.

The WK2 will have four Pratt and Whitney PW308 engines, as revealed by Flight in September last year. And as Flight has also reported WK2's crew and passenger cabin will be the same; for training purposes.

Above: White Knight II under construction with its twin fuselages being fitted with their tail fins at Scaled Composites

Virgin Galactic also announced that the SS2 simulator is now operational, ahead of the previous March 2008 date that had been given. It is already being used for pilot training.

And if the main gear are moved very close to the center of gravity (CG), more than sufficient, and will reduce the need for high power breaks. Many airplanes still fly with a tailSKID, and many gliders still use skids.This flies directly in the face of the early poster that claims SS2 doesn't push the state of the art. SOA applies not only to new materials or designs that have never been seen before. It also applies to using old techniques in new ways, or in places that they weren't used before. It's no

Really, the primary thing this project has going for it is that it is not funded by a government. It might be boring and not state of the art now, but further development of private space flight should lead to some truly interesting technology and vehicles.

It might be boring and not state of the art now, but further development of private space flight should lead to some truly interesting technology and vehicles.

But, really, if private space travel is to become commonplace, what we want is boring and un-sexy technology -- not exciting and cutting edge.

What we need is the equivalent of a Buick station wagon with wood-grain trim. Boring as hell, but a reliable vehicle which focuses on doing the task instead of pushing the envelope. Once you have that, then this stuff can start to become routine based on available technology.

So is your average bobble head doll manufacturer. And they're just as relevant to improving orbital spaceflight. If you want someone to cheer for, cheer for SpaceX, for Orbital Sciences, for SeaLaunch, for any of the private companies involved in *actual orbital spaceflight*.

The problem with your logic is that you are missing the effects of changing the norm. Sure, like another commenter said in response to your comment, a Buick is not amazing, but it's reliability is compared to a Formula 1. The Shuttle is a Formula 1, so is SeaLaunch and the others. They aren't trying to move people on the scale and with the safety of these guys, but think if all the cars in the world were just race cars. This will change things; particularly, to continue my analogy, when SpaceShipTwo is basically the Model T. With the funds they will get from selling these trips to the public, sexy advances can be made; ones that I think the other companies will have difficulty keeping up with.

Virgin is focusing on a specific limited mission that no one has done in a way as to open it for a large number of people. If Virgin can make money giving people these cannonball shots, then others, if not Virgin itself, will spend the money to research and develop a craft that can do orbital or even lunar missions. There doesn't need to be a linear progression from SS2 to an orbit capable craft. My analogy was fine because I don't think the Buick should be on the racetrack. They are vehicles designed for different tasks; tuned to their specific environments; just as orbital and sub-orbital missions are different. Again, all Virgin needs to do is to make money doing this. Then people will believe that a NGO can do this, and NGO orbital fights will come with a craft properly tuned and designed for that more difficult challenge. When that happens, you will see the new technology.

As to my understanding of rocket science, well, for starters, maybe you should learn manners before you return to the discussion. You're not going to convince people to agree with your opinion if you insult them first. You only come across as an idiot when you do it; regardless of how smart you may be. You also might try opening your mind to ideas that don't fit with your own narrow view of the world.

***This was a very good point, IMO*****quote**As I mentioned before, I was in error about how much delta v it takes, including gravity losses, to get in orbit, 9500 m/s instead of 11km/s. So about a quarter of the necessary delta v was provided by the motor and a further 300 or so m/s by the plane. Given that SpaceShipTwo goes a bit higher and has more downrange than SpaceShipOne, it probably has a little more delta v. So you're too low by at least a factor of 2 in your delta v estimate. And there's still higher ISP fuels. For example, they can use liquid oxygen in their hybrid to boost ISP. And higher mass ratios will obviously be needed. But I see no reason orbital delta v can't be reached.****Twice the thrust is probably attainable with more engines(check) and a little more fuel that has a higher energy output(I hate acronyms - a pet peeve of mine). The ship itself that launches them can also without a doubt be made to go faster, especially not IF, but WHEN we get scramjets and similar technologies working. 4000m/sec from the module and 1-2000m/sec from the booster/plane/etc is suddenly not so far off the mark.

IME, when you start talking about engineering problems and the difference between making it happen and the prototypes is a matter of 2-3x the test results, it's a matter of figuring it out more than being in the realm of "not possible". I don't think Scaled Composites second design can get into orbit, but it's a good step in the right direction, make no mistake about it.

I have to give them props for trying at least. Their goal is to get into space and not just give joy-rides, after all.

1) It's not "twice"; it's level of performance is a tenth that of what is needed for orbit.2) Thrust is not the problem; it's ISP and staging.

and a little more fuel

Try a hundred times more fuel and a craft equivalently large enough to manage it. See OTRAG for details.

that has a higher energy output(I hate acronyms - a pet peeve of mine).

Nobody who discusses rocketry any relevant amount will spell out the words "specific impulse" every time. It's just "ISP". Insisting on spelling everything out marks you as a novice as much as I'd come across as an internet novice by constantly spelling out www as "world-wide web".

The ship itself that launches them can also without a doubt be made to go faster, especially not IF, but WHEN we get scramjets and similar technologies working.

Lol. Just, lol.

4000m/sec from the module and 1-2000m/sec from the booster/plane/etc is suddenly not so far off the mark.

What is off the mark is that Scaled is going to go from polybut and nitrous to an as-of-yet in-development technology that requires carbon-carbon panels and an extensive regenerative cooling system with typically hydrogen fuel, without completely starting from scratch to boot.

Right, SS1/2 aren't even close. That's not why they are interesting. You don't expect a Buick to win a Formula-1 race, or even be competitive.

Further, the team isn't even *trying* to advance the state of the art in any fundamental science.

But that's why it's interesting. This is a low-tech engineering approach, with as close to commodity parts as they can manage. They're still a long long way from anyhting useful, but if they ever do get there they will have knocked a couple of 0s off the price, and significantly reduced the engineering complexity.

Naturally that provokes hostility from real rocket scientists - hey, the next thing you know, rocket science will be simple enough to outsource to India.;) Of course, the reality is likely that the materials science is not be there yet, and one just can't build a useful rocket using low-tech parts yet, but I glad to see someone at least trying.

And the Penske team did famously win an Indy-car race with a very low-tech Buick-like engine once (pushrods for the win!), but that's a different story.

So what if it can't get to orbit? Can you name another craft that will do a sub-orbital pop-up like it does with multiple passengers?I think that the aerospace community has been way too fixated on making the perfect machine. It's just not possible in one go. Look at what happened to Venturestar. Instead of doing some intermediate, *flying* prototypes it was a big bang approach and they sunk how many billions into it? With *nothing* to show.

So is your average bobble head doll manufacturer. And they're just as relevant to improving orbital spaceflight. If you want someone to cheer for, cheer for SpaceX, for Orbital Sciences, for SeaLaunch, for any of the private companies involved in *actual orbital spaceflight*.

You forgot one very important word:*Manned* spaceflight.

SpaceX might have launched, but not a manned mission, yet. Virgin Galactic in that regard is quite a ways ahead.

Cutting edge technology is only one place to contribute to space flight. Production improvements can also aid space flight, and producing more of the material needed to do space flight may improve manufacturing techniques.

Then making 'space flight' available to more of the public helps create more awareness.

Production improvements of low ISP vehicles contribute absolutely nothing to high ISP vehicles. Production improvements of vehicles with minimal to no TPS contribute nothing to the serious TPS challenges of actual orbital vehicles. Virtually nothing about SS1 applies to the serious challenges involved in spaceflight.

Here's my take. You are very wrong. Scaled Composites is carefully putting together that vehicle with the high ISP engine, the thermal protection system, and all those other challenges. It just hasn't starting designing it yet. There's a lot more to a vehicle than the vehicle itself. You need experienced designers, ground crew, and pilots. You need testing experience and infrastructure (note, for example, that SpaceShipTwo has its own flight simulator already). You need to gain experience in jumping the substantial bureaucratic hurdles for a manned space vehicle. You need to understand what the problems and challenges are before you design much less put the vehicle together. And you need to do all that without going bankrupt. What you are seeing is IMHO how a master would approach this problem. The key is incremental design. You don't make the orbital vehicle all at once with all those unknown pieces snapped together. You build up to it with progressively more sophisticated launch vehicles and extensive testing at each step. Unlike the other "alt.space" players like SpaceX, Blue Horizon, SpaceDev, etc, Scaled Composites probably turned a small profit with SpaceShipOne, its first space vehicle. And I bet it's turning a profit with SpaceShipTwo as well. If SpaceShipTwo doesn't get the hoped-for business, then Scaled Composites can walk away from it all. The thing that gets ignored is that Scaled Composites has economically one of the soundest projects in the space business.

"Progressively" implies continuity. There is no "progressive" approach to orbit from their current design.

This is the source of your error. Repeatedly, you make two observations. Namely that you need more delta v and that you need considerable TPS for reentry. These are known problems with various solutions. I don't see the vehicle requiring a major redesign, after all delta v is fixable by better ISP engines and a larger mass ratio. Maybe the resulting vehicle will be too heavy for a plane to carry it economically, but I doubt they'd have gone this far without figuring that out. And TPS systems are pretty we

Here's a good analogy. It's the early days of aviation, and you want a plane that can cross the Atlantic in 8 hours. No plane can cross the Atlantic at all at that point in time. What do you do? If you are bound by economic reality, you realize that if you build a functioning route structure with existing tech, and build it with future development in mind, it will be less of a jump from that than simply magically building a plane.

On a technical level you're right. But SS2 addresses a different problem. Once joyrides into space are sold, space tourism will be established as a market. Right now space tourism is a single-segment market: for several million dollars the Russians will sell you one of their spots on the space station. Aside from that, no one knows for sure how many people will pay how much money to go into space. If SpaceShipTwo is a commercial success, that decreases the risk and proves the potential return of investing i

Exactly right. The advantage of the SS1 was that it was the very first craft in human history to get into orbit and come back while being fully self-contained. No booster rockets the size of an apartment building. No heat shielding to fail. Cheap, reusable, and NOT under 4500 layers of Government security clearances and red tape.If they can even get 100Kg up into orbit for under a hundred thousand dollars per launch, it's an astounding level of economy that we've never seen before. SS2 looks to be lead

According to all the major sources out there, they made it into space, though obviously at the very very bottom edge of it. It's not hard to imagine applications for this, either - possibly using the craft as a reusable booster stage for a smaller rocket strapped to its underside. The fuel requirements to lift 100kg from the lower edge of space to orbit are much less, obviously.It's amazing in any case, and to be honest, I'll leave the determination as to whether it can be scaled up or not to the real sci

relevant, orbital rocketry...that can't land at an airport. Nor will passengers survive long in an unpressurized capsule with no life support. Getting there is only half the fun.Remember the Mercury and Gemini programs? You know, the ones we used to help us learn what it would take to get men to the moon and back, safely? They're taking STEPS, and you're complaining because they aren't jumping right to a space shuttle clone.

Remember the Mercury and Gemini programs? You know, the ones we used to help us learn what it would take to get men to the moon and back, safely? They're taking STEPS, and you're complaining because they aren't jumping right to a space shuttle clone.

Right. Because Mercury and Gemini were simply copying what people did half a century earlier except getting worse performance despite greatly improved technology at their disposal, in a method that's completely unscaleable to orbit.

As though a cockpit is somehow the most challenging part, or even a relevantly challenging part, of rocketry.

A capsule carrying people is just a payload. The cost and challenge is in the launch vehicle.

(and let's not get into the term "man-rated", which nobody can seem to define outside of a few general concepts that most rockets can easily be designed to meet, such as limited Gs and not blowing up every other flight)

they flew the first one for the prize's purpose twice, but they flew the craft a lot more times than just three. there's (or was) a testing report publicly available for each flight they did, and it's a LOT more than 3. plus a lot of simulation runs. they probably understand their craft quite well by now

Isp is specific impulse. It's a rough measure of how effective a fuel/propulsion system is, and is very useful in determining delta-v budget.TPS is probably "thermal protection system," but it could also be the reports that need to be filed with the new cover, did you get the memo?

Although it is generally considered unprofessional to include acronyms without definition, in this case, the author was clearly intending to convey that he's so familiar with those terms that he considers them such basic knowledg

It's relevant because the more companies MAKING MONEY in the space industry - especially the "consumer level" space industry - the more investment there will be in those industries and the more the state of the art WILL be advanced.I certainly cheer for SpaceX and other private companies doing what you insist on referring to as "real" space flight like it's the only kind that matters. They're doing amazing things. But their focus is - quite naturally - on bringing costs down in the market that exists today

I should add that I'm only criticizing SS1/SS2. I have nothing against WK1 or WK2; they're quite nice carrier aircraft. But SS1 and SS2 are completely meaningless. If you want small companies doing meaningful rocketry, check out SpaceX [spacex.com]. Their Falcon 9, a rocket whose heavy version will carry as much payload as NASA's beleagured (and possibly dead in the water) Ares, including its own spacecraft that can dock with the ISS, will be launching this June [spaceref.com]. The typical launch cost of payloads in the west is $10k/kg. In Russia, China, and India, $7k/kg is the standard. Sometimes you can get discounts down toi as low as $4-5k/kg. The Falcon 9 is $2-3k/kg. And looking over its construction, design, stats, etc, these numbers definitely appear credible.

The commercialization of space at all is going to be beneficial in the long run. As much fun as it is to have all developments come from the government and funded exclusively by Congress, there's a lot to be said for companies who can earn money getting a lot of people to go to space. Eventually, we'll see better ideas about waste management and how to stay healthy in zero-g.

Uh, Falcon 9 is more along the lines of the Delta IV, not the Ares. Wikipedia says Ares V will take 130,000 kg to LEO, versus the Falcon 9 Heavy's 27,500 (comparable to the 22,950 of the Delta IV Heavy).

As for meaningful rocketry and the beleaguered state of other systems, their two Falcon 1 launches thus far have failed to reach orbit.

He was comparing Ares I to Falcon 9, which are similar. As to falcon 1 not reaching orbit, well, both the DOD and NASA are saying that everything is fine on this, and believe that the next launch is good. Considering that falcon 1 actually just missed the altitude due to early cut-off, I would say that they really have a pretty good chance of success.

For a little more detail, the first failure was a loose bolt that caused an explosion ~25 seconds into the flight, and they corrected this by implementing better checks during the launch including a 'hold-down' sequence at which if anything is slightly off-nominal the entire procedure is aborted. This happened at the second launch, although they were able to refuel and launch again in just over an hour, which is quite impressive anyway.For the second failure when the engine and telemetry cut off as it was

Not to be rude, but you need to get a clue here. Joyrides mean more money in a growing space economy. SpaceShipTwo is a critical test of space tourism. Will it get enough business to cover development costs or help fund an orbital vehicle? Sure SpaceX's $2-3k/kg is very sexy especially since they're close to a demonstration launch, but SpaceShipTwo is state of the art in private manned space. Further, SpaceX has yet to successfully launch anything while Scaled Composites has three successful launches (with

I call this "The Star Trek Problem" because the public just has no respect for how difficult achieving orbit is, nor any understanding how reaching orbital altitude is practically nothing compared to reaching orbit. Our science fiction generally makes reaching orbit easy, and the hard part appears to be everything after you're in orbit, when in reality it's pretty much the opposite.

Before we go on, read this post [slashdot.org]. It's tangential to the topics here, but it is by far the best reply to your posts and discusses why SpaceShipTwo is important and does extend the state of the art.

Successful joyrides mean more money thrown at joyrides. Soyuz (and later Dragon) are a test of orbital space tourism.

Let us not forget that the point of SpaceShipTwo is ultimately to put people in orbit. That's not "joyrides".

SpaceShipTwo is state of the art in rocketplanes that go ~850 m/s instead of the 7,800 m/s needed for orbital rocketry (and remember, it's an exponential challenge to get more velocity, not a linear one).

SpaceShipOne, the predecessor to SpaceShipTwo delivered around 2250 m/s of delta v out of roughly 9500 m/s needed to get to LEO (including gravity losses). In a nasaspaceflight.com thread, I calculate [nasaspaceflight.com]

But spaceX is doing the same thing NASA, Russia, the EU have done. sit on a giant explosion and ride it up into space. SS2 and white knight are working on flying up there. with any luck SpaceShip 10 will be SSTO which makes it 10 times better than anyone else.

Of course SS10 will also be 30 years down the line. they will need the funding to get their first. So Suborbital flights, and then deliveries will help pay for it.

I agree with you, suborbital joyrides don't contribute to the art of space access, they are a dead end merely for profit. And I agree with you, I am excited about SpaceX, other private orbital ventures and their possibilities, however, I must refute this statement:

Their Falcon 9, a rocket whose heavy version will carry as much payload as NASA's beleagured (and possibly dead in the water) Ares, including its own spacecraft that can dock with the ISS, will be launching this June.

I'm way, way more excited about SpaceX than Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic, but it's still cool to see them finally building hardware, even if it is low tech, pressure-fed rockets. It's also interesting to see how much different the actual SS2 and WK2 are from the concept art, which was basically just SSI et all built a little bit longer. I noticed WK2 is going with four smaller engines rather than two large engines, presumably for redundancy. And the wing and nose on SS2 are much different than we saw b

It's the rocket engineering making them possible.SpaceX is starting with designs that already have enough performance to reach orbit, with a goal of later incrementally improving the reusability and turnaround time/cost in order to make those designs more reliable and affordable. Scaled Composites is starting with designs that are already completely cheaply reusable and easy to test, with the possibility of incrementally improving their performance until they can reach orbit. Coming at the design space fr

If you want small companies doing meaningful rocketry, check out SpaceX. Their Falcon 9, a rocket whose heavy version will carry as much payload as NASA's beleagured (and possibly dead in the water) Ares, including its own spacecraft that can dock with the ISS, will be launching this June.

I wouldn't bet large sums of money on it. SpaceX doesn't have a good track record of meeting it's goals - and they haven't been able to get the much simpler Falcon I flying regularly and reliably.

As far as I know, it is the only manned spacecraft without a complex or heavy reentry heat shield.

That's because it doesn't go fast enough to need one. It peaked out at Mach 2.5 (and this was in the upper atmosphere, meaning it was getting far less heating than a jet moving at this speed), not Mach 18 or so (and remember that energy is proportional to the velocity *squared*). This is not "state of the art". It's "state of the art fifty years ago". It's not contributing a damn thing.

So, in short, you're saying that we should be, instead of focusing on companies who are actually going to orbit, like SpaceX, instead focus on people who are trying to raise enough venture capital to start from scratch in trying to go to orbit.

ummm... SpaceX has barely gotten off the pad much less into space. I don't see why you have such a hard on for them. So far all they've got are spred sheets with projections. Until they light the fire and send some metal into space all they are is talk.

To say Scaled Composites is not "contributing" is incorrect. Who do you think came up with and has built and flown a throttleable solid rocket engine? (I'll give you a hint, It wasn't SpaceX.) They've also come up with some interesting canopy (window

It advances the state of the art not at all, but if it gets the kids interested in space flight, and icreases public support for NASA and other govt. funding, or even creates a market for that crazy inflatable space hotel [bigelowaerospace.com], I am all for it. Plus Scaled Composites is a cool company.

Plus, why does something need to advance the state of the art to be cool or worth doing? Making something that's already proven to be possible cheaper and more accesible is a noble goal too (see also: the personal computer revolu

Maybe so, but it's a joyride I'd love to take. Seriously, even if this is only a PR stunt (which I don't believe it is), I think it's a good thing. Space tourism will be a new industry at some point in time, and I for one can't wait to get my ticket.

Say the 29' Mercedes was far more impressive technically than what Ford was putting out but how many straight 8 engines do you see used in cars today? The most cutting edge isn't always the most practical. Do we wait for warp technology for space flight or use chemical rockets to get the ball rolling? The Space Ship 2 is the Model T of space flight. That's not an insult it's a major compliment. The Model T was one of the most successful cars in history for good reason. This craft puts space flight not into the hands of the average person but potentially into the hands of large numbers of people. Henry Ford would give it a big thumbs up and we should all view it as the stepping stone it is.

Rocketry is subject to the constraints of physics, and the constraints of physics say that their system (low-ISP air launched) simply cannot scale. Which means starting from scratch. Not like they've addressed any of the most serious rocketry challenges to begin with (like, say, a TPS)

Few of the space systems are based on a manufacturing line. Almost all are based on onses. The goal is to build a fleet of these, and then to change the line into building true space ships. In addition, it is about VERY low costs flights. Sending cargo is not that pricey (and will probably get cheaper as we look at some of the launch rails). But live cargo is VERY expensive. If that can be lowered, then the total price is cheap. Saying that this does nothing for Space exploration is like saying that Saturn

Spaceship 2 is just the second step. they are working their way up to space which is far more than what you are doing.The fact is that only a few countries have been able to afford the hundred million dollars a launch. Spaceship 2 is working on getting there for a hell of a lot less than that. sure it will take a while, but at least they are trying, unlike NASA, Russia, ESA, or Japan.

The Answer to regular space travel isn't shoving a stick of dynamite up your arse and lighting it, which is currently how

It has been pointed out that the private industry side of this is the exciting part, which does have some value, but I think the "joyride" part actually has more. Sure this is just for the very rich, right now. Airplanes used to be only for the very rich as well. Virgin Galactic will make space accessible to the public. Right now space is only something cold and functional, for the military and billion dollar businesses. This makes space fun and exciting, not for the lucky Air F

I think what's important here is it's commercial spaceflight being done as a viable business. Sure, they're $200k joyrides that aren't even close to acheiving orbital speeds and the engineering challenges with getting to orbit are daunting and well beyond anything with SS1 & 2.
A private manned orbital spacecraft will require fundamentally different design principles, but if there's a successful business behind suborbital, ponying up the R&D cash for an orbital craft will be much easier to justify

If you disagree with this statement, go ahead -- explain why you feel that a vehicle with this low delta-V, horrible ISP, and proportionally high mass that faces bare minimal reentry heating -- advances the state of the art.

No, because the reason to disagree with your statement is that it implies that advancing the state of the art is absolutely everything to space exploration.

This will contribute to establishing a routine of space exploration. They're expecting weekly launches. Who else is capable of weekly launches?When the R&D team has passed this project onto the exploit and maintain team, they can start working on weekly orbital launches. They can offer a 'round the world trip in a single day. Take THAT, Jules Verne!

This is not about advancing the state of the art in rocket design, no one ever claimed that it was.They are learning how to build an infrastructure that could take paying customers to orbit.

They are gaining experience carrying passengers and a spaceship up to the edge of space.They are gaining experience dealing with novice 'astronauts' and what it takes to prepare them and what they should expect from them in a weightless environment.They are gaining experience designing and building and flying carrier aircraft.I would imagine that the next generation will use a different rocket design, go significantly faster, and start using heat shielding, with yet a bigger carrier aircraft.Once they have that in place, the next generation can upgrade the 'spaceship' to something with serious rockets that have the capability of reaching orbital speeds.

Or should they have gone for orbit first and hope everything else works at the same time?

...space has been declining in popularity? There was a time when the idea of Space Travel excited the entire country, nowadays people just dismiss it as a waste of money. As peoples interest in space decline, surprise surprise, so does NASA's budget.

If you want to get more serious cutting edge space science done, then you need to make the whole concept popular again. That is why I think this whole Virgin Venture is worthwhile, not because it's an eccentric joyride for the rich.

If you disagree with this statement, go ahead -- explain why you feel that a vehicle with this low delta-V, horrible ISP, and proportionally high mass that faces bare minimal reentry heating -- advances the state of the art.

So a private citizen designs, builds and tests his own SPACECRAFT, and all you have to say is it isn't technologically advanced enough for you. I suppose the one in your garage is ultra L33T, right.

Made by private citizens to be used by private citizens, I don't remember there even

Agreed - it doesn't add anything except a toy for people with more money than sense.

Worse, it's hype causes more important projects to be overlooked. There is almost a media conspiracy to make the phrase 'private spaceflight' mean 'corporate spaceflight'. In my opinion, the following two projects were of far more importance to mankind and to private spaceflight than SpacShipOne:

Yeah, I mean NASA is flush with knowledge and in no need of competition or innovation... How many shuttles have been in danger due to chunks of heat foam breaking off and damaging the ship again? Yeah, there is no room for improvement at all or even another set of eyes and minds.

> If you disagree with this statement, go ahead -- explain why you feel that a vehicle with this low delta-V, horrible ISP, and proportionally high mass that faces bare minimal reentry heating -- advances the state of the art.

Other than contributions like feathered reentry I agree that it does very little to advance the state of the art.

But that is precisely the point. The state of the art does not need much advancing. Everything we really need know in order to get into space has been known for a couple of decades and has advanced very little even with much bigger budgets thrown at it by governments around the world. What we need to advance is the state of practice and Scaled/Virgin is doing exactly that.

Just one small example: an aircraft capable of carrying with proper ground clearance and safely dropping this size of load did not exist until now. It can be useful for many other applications like this one [airlaunchllc.com]. Does this advance the state of the art? Of course not. We've known such an aircraft can be built for well over half a century. But having this kind of aircraft actually available shaves many millions and a lot of risk from the budget of projects that need it. We all know these projects are facing lots of risks and are always underbudgeted so every little bit of help they can get really counts.

So it has been funded by joyriders. Anything wrong with that? Would you rather fund such development with your tax dollars?

We have a winner. I get the impression that the original poster thinks that the vehicle is the hardest problem. Maybe it is. But you're going nowhere if you can't do the above. Mod parent up and all that.

Well yes. But that was the simular excuse back in the 1500's Trans contental travel was not cheap back then, nore was it mostly risk free. Much like Space Travel is today. Today the average middle class american person who saves some money can take a cruse around the world, if they liked, back a few hundred years ago that was only reserved for the super rich or a governemnt. Space Travel is starting to get to this point now... Except it needs to be far safer then the Trans Contental Sea Voyages were back

Is it only to get rich tourists to a high altitude to see what shape the earth is?

I can think of the odd oil baron who would be genuinely surprised to find it's round...

Come to think of it, perhaps a bit of perspective wouldn't hurt those on the rich list: I sometimes think that some people really need to be reminded that no matter how much money they have, they're still inconsequential bugs destined to be squashed on the windscreen of time.

I believe that the corkscrew problem of the first of the two X-Prize flights might have been due to pilot error or something easily correctable.

The second flight, by the ex-Navy pilot, didn't have the problem. In fact, the pilot broke the unofficial altitude record held by an X15.

(Of course, on an earlier test flight if my memory is right, the same pilot landed SS2 a bit hard, causing the landing skid to collapse. Embarassing, but not a disaster. But that is what doing test flights is about.)